Talk:Crocodile

Rehabilitation of the Much-Vandalized Etymology Section

The Etymology section which I painstakingly researched and wrote in 2008 has suffered some erroneous mutations due to being repeatedly vandalized and repaired.

(Why is an article on crocodiles subjected to so much vandalism?? Get a life.)

For example, the Greek letter kappa should always be transliterated as 'k' not 'c' according to present-day academic conventions. (Though note 'c' is correct once a Greek word has been Latinized). Accents on the Greek transliterations have also suffered, and some other points.

I do recognize that our contributions to Wikipedia get altered by later editors -- but in this case you will see that none of the changes has been for the better.

The 4th sentence that has the word ‘priority’ in the socialization section makes no sense.

You'll find my pristine original version in the article history at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crocodile&oldid=213450868

The source code of the entire Etymology section there should simply be cut and pasted into the current article.

Thank you. ~CrocodileCorrector

Edit request: Change

Please, change the table, for a god lay out for the book... i can't download as pdf... thank you. 08:04, 21 October 2012‎ User:84.123.39.175

Etymology section

removed content: "It is not clear whether this is a medieval corruption or derives from alternative Greco-Latin forms (late Greek corcodrillos and corcodrillion are attested). A (further) corrupted form cocodrille is found in Old French and was borrowed into Middle English as cocodril(le). The Modern English form crocodile was adapted directly from the Classical Latin crocodīlus in the 16th century, replacing the earlier form. The use of -y- in the scientific name Crocodylus (and forms derived from it) is a corruption introduced by Laurenti (1768)." (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 13:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you removed quite a lot, and I have reverted that. Please don't recast entire sections in your image in this way, particularly when you go off at complete right angles to the previous content. I hardly believe that everything in those two paragraphs needed to be thrown out to make room for your three cryptic sentences. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

"recast entire sections in your image" - you see my image on the screen? I think this would be impossible. I used sources to indicate the changes - because I made the changes you presume I'm on an ego drive. "you go off at complete right angles to the previous content": I added tags to the page - the reasons why I removed the content:

• Content isn't sourced: it's unreliable - what this means is - although it reads fine: the wording is good it makes sense - I or anyone else doesn't know if it is true because there aren't citations attached.
• Some of the information actually isn't shown in the sources i.e. the source states something - the article content states some other thing.

"I hardly believe that everything" - that's fine sentiment but proof isn't about belief. That you think you can act on the basis of belief isn't something which is possible to base a choice on with regards to: whether or not the information is true. It is easily possible to verify the information: all you need to do is look through the references attached and compare with the article - I added tags to the page to indicate where the problems are "failed verification". In addition I used "citation needed" in some applications where the source doesn't state the content - but the content could be possible. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 01:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

"Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." WP:V (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 02:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

"WP:V This page documents an English Wikipedia policy. It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." - What is your position on how I should choose to act. You seem to be acting like a maverick or rebel against policy in which you have me arrive here to defend my choice but in life and on wikipedia the problem is obvious: which is why WP:V exists - the obviousness of the need of proof. You expect me to accept I or anyone else doesn't require/need the indication of proof? (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 02:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

reverted edits @Hemiauchenia: what are your opinions on why the prev. version is preferential - I provided the reasons in the summary. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 01:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

If people object to your edits, you need to discuss them on the talkpage to gain consensus for them, see WP:BRD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

You see the comment I made above - this is the Talk page: I'm asking you: what are the reasons you think the previous version should exist instead of the reverted version (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 01:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

To accompany the summaries which if you look through you will find I made indications of why the previous version wasn't possible to use, I have added tags to demonstrate something of the same problem. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 01:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• All right, sorry for the delay. @Onemillionthtree: while I was less than enchanted with this version that you produced yesterday (which is just way to cryptic to be of much use to readers), the later version reads like an entirely different animal - complete sentences and good coverage. I believe you somewhat over-referenced that, in fact - we do not need multiple cites for ancillary facts about the cited sources, and I will prune that down a bit. But otherwise this is certainly an improvement over the largely unsourced previous paragraphs. By my lights, this is worth implementing, and I have done so for now. Subject to comment by other editors, natch. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)